An annual examination of a crane was not required by section 5031(d)
until 9/8/95. The Division cited Employer for a violation of section 5031(d) before that
date. In the decision the ALJ amended the citation to allege a violation of section
5031(b)(6) [daily, pre-work inspection of crane lines] without notifying the parties of
the intent to amend pursuant to section 386(b). Failure to notify the parties was not
raised as an issue on reconsideration and Employer argued in the petition that it had
presented evidence showing that it had not violated section 5031(b)(6). The section 386(b)
notice requirement is an opportunity for the parties to show that the post-submission
amendment would prejudice them. Employer was the party potentially prejudiced by the
amendment and its petition "affirmatively shows" there was no prejudice, so the
purpose of section 386 is moot and the Board approves the amendment [harmless error]. The
Division did not prove when the alleged damage to the crane lines occurred or that the
crane was in service. Hence, no violation of section 5031(b)(6) was found because there
was no proof of employee exposure to the damaged lines or proof of the duty to make a
pre-shift inspection of the lines after damage had arisen.